..    .  3  GEAD3S   FOR  RIFE   OLIVES/*' 

By 

Frederic  T.  Bioletti 
Tniv.  of  Calif.  Agric.  7xpt .  Station 
Bulletin  Ho.  263 


UNIVERSITY  C 
AT   LOS 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATION 

COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 


SIZE  GRADES  FOR  RIPE  OLIVES 


BY 
FREDERIC  T.  BIOLETTI 


BULLETIN  No.  263 

Berkeley,  Cal.,  January,  1916 


CITRICULTUR£ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRESS 
BERKELEY 
1916 


BENJAMIN  IDE  WHEELER,  President  of  the  University. 
EXPERIMENT    STATION    STAFF 

HEADS   OF   DIVISIONS 

THOMAS  FORSYTH  HUNT,  Director. 

EUGENE  W.  Hn  CARD,  Agricultural  Chemistry   (Emeritus). 

EDWARD  .1.  WICKSON,  Horticulture   (Emeritus). 

HERBERT  J.  WEBBER,  Director  Citrus  Experiment  Station;  Plant  Breeding. 

HUBERT  E.  VAN  NORMAN,  Vice-Director;   Dairy  Management. 

WILLIAM  A.  SETCHELL,  Botany. 

MEYER  E.  JAFFA,  Nutrition. 

ROBERT  H.  LOUGHRIDGE,  Soil  Chemistry  and  Physics   (Emeritus). 

CHARLES  W.  WOODWORTH,  Entomology. 

RALPH  E.  SMITH,  Plant  Pathology. 

J.  ELIOT  COIT,  Citriculture. 

JOHN  W.  GILMORE,  Agronomy. 

CHARLES  F.  SHAW,  Soil  Technology. 

JOHN  W.  GREGG,  Landscape  Gardening  and  Floriculture. 

FREDERIC  T.  BIOLETTI,  Viticulture  and  Enology 

WARREN  T.  CLARKE,  Agricultural  Extension. 

JOHN  S.  BURD,  Agricultural  Chemistry. 

CHARLES  B.  LIPMAN,  Soil  Chemistry  and  Bacteriology. 

CLARENCE   M.   HARING,   Veterinary   Science   and   Bacteriology. 

ERNEST  B.  BABCOCK,  Genetics. 

GORDON  II.   TRUE,  Animal   Husbandry. 

JAMES  T.  BARRETT,  Plant  Pathology. 

FRITZ  W.  WOLL,  Animal  Nutrition. 

A.  V.  STUBENRAUCH,  Pomology. 

WALTER  MULFORD,  Forestry. 

W.  P.  KELLEY,  Agricultural  Chemistry. 

H.  J.  QUAYLE,  Entomology. 

I).   T.  MASON,  Forestry. 

J.  B.  DAVIDSON,  Agricultural  Engineering. 

ELWOOD  MEAD,  Rural  Institutions. 

H.  S.  REED,  Plant  Physiology. 

WILLIAM  G.  HUMMEL,  Agricultural  Education. 

LEON  M.  DAVIS,  Dairy  Industry. 

JOHN  E.  DOUGHERTY,  Poultry  Husbandry. 

S.  S.  ROGERS,  Olericulture. 

FRANK  ADAMS,  Irrigation  Practice. 

DAVID  N.  MORGAN,  Assistant  to  the  Director. 

Mrs.  D.  L.  BUNNELL,  Librarian. 


DIVISION  OP  VITICULTURE   AND   ENOLOGY 

F.  T.  BIOLETTI  W.  V.  CRUESS 

W.  F.  OGLESBY  F.  C.  H.  FLOSSFEDER 

L.  BONNET  A.  E.  WAY 


SIZE-GRADES  FOR  RIPE  OLIVES 

By  FREDERIC  T.  BIOLETTI 


Uses  and  Methods  of  "Sizing." — Pickled  olives  are  sorted  into 
several  grades  based  on  size.  This  is  necessary  for  various  reasons. 
When  the  sizes  are  mixed,  the  olives  are  less  attractive  in  appearance. 
The  large  sizes  have  a  greater  commercial  value.  The  price  paid  by 
the  pickler  to  the  grower  depends  on  the  size  of  the  fruit.  Finally, 
it  is  impossible  to  process  olives  of  various  sizes  together  with  the  best 
results. 

Various  devices  are  used  to  separate  the  various  size-grades,  but 
they  all  depend  on  the  variations  in  the  shortest  diameter  of  the  olive. 
The  unit  of  measurement  used  is  called  a  "sixteenth,"  which  means  a 
sixteenth  of  an  inch.  Olives  with  a  diameter  of  less  than  9  sixteenths 
are  usually  rejected  for  pickling.  All  above  this  size  are  separated 
into  grades  differing  from  each  other  by  one  or  more  sixteenths  of 
an  inch. 

No  accepted  standard  of  grades  has  been  established  for  olives  as 
for  prunes  and  raisins.  An  examination  of  the  various  brands  of 
canned  and  bottled  olives  on  the  market  shows  great  diversity  both  in 
the  segregation  of  the  various  grades  and  in  the  methods  of  designating 
them.  Uniformity  in  this  matter  is  very  desirable.  The  buyer  wants 
to  know  exactly  what  he  is  getting;  the  seller  needs  to  know  exactly 
what  the  buyer  is  ordering. 

Variations  in  Practice. — In  order  to  determine  the  variations  in 
practice  and  whether  there  was  any  tendency  towards  uniform  stand- 
ards, an  examination  was  made  of  a  number  of  samples  of  olives 
collected  in  the  open  market.  Of  these  samples  eighteen  were  in  bottles 
and  thirty-three  in  cans.  They  include  the  best  brands  of  eleven 
picklers  and  handlers  of  northern,  central,  and  southern  California, 
and  therefore  represent  the  present  practice  fairly. 

The  examination  included  the  volume  of  the  container,  the  weight 
of  the  olives  and  of  the  brine,  and  the  number  of  olives.  Certain 
samples  of  typical  sizes  were  carefully  measured  to  determine  varia- 
tions in  size.  Some  of  the  data  obtained  is  given  in  the  following  table : 

[215] 

232992 


216 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


TABLE     I 
SIZE-GRADES  OF  COMMERCIAL  EIPE  OLIVES 


Samp 
No. 

5 

'le 
Designation  on  can  or  bottle 

Jumbo.     Sevillano               

Weight 
of  Olives 
Ibs. 

.85 

Size 
of 
container 

6  640  cc 

Number 
of 
Olives 

30 

Number 
of  Olives 
per  Ib. 

35  5 

Mean 
diam. 
16ths  in. 

16  05 

23 

Jumbo.     Net  contents  1  qt.            

1.22 

53 

43  6 

99 

Jumbo      Net  weight  2  Ibs. 

1.12 

54 

48  3 

19 

Fancy 

1.47 

6  950 

73 

49  7 

?0 

Fancy       .               

.26 

6  225 

14 

53.4 

1 

Fancy.     Mission                   .         

.95 

6  640 

56 

58.9 

13,63 

1? 

X  Mission 

1.02 

6  665 

63 

61.4 

13  60 

6 

No.  1  Mission 

.88 

6  640 

54 

61  5 

13  70 

9 
13 

Extra  Fancy  Mission  and  Manzanillo-. 
XX  Mission 

.99 
.96 

6700 
5  665 

64 
65 

64.6 
67  6 

13.30 
13  24 

43 

Lar^e  size      Contents  20  oz. 

1  66 

1035 

112 

68  0 

10 

Fancy  Mission 

1.00 

6  700 

72 

73.4 

12  69 

24 

Fancy.    1  qt.  net.;  1  Ib.  4  oz.  net  wgt... 

1.37 

970 

100 

73.0 

47 

Fancy      Net  w't    16  oz 

53 

485 

39 

73  0 

15 

Mammoth  size.    Mission 

.62 

460 

46 

73  8 

25 

Fancy.     1  pt.  net;  10  oz.  net  wgt  

.67 

490 

49 

740 

37 

Fancy.    Net  wgt.  16  oz  

.53 

485 

39 

750 

14 

XXX  Mission 

1.07 

6  665 

81 

75  7 

12  57 

38 

Fancy.    1  qt.  net;  1  Ib.  4  oz.  net  wgt... 

1.30 

970 

100 

76.0 

18 

Mission  

.65 

6475 

50 

77.4 

39 

Fancy.     1  pt.  net;  10  oz.  net  wgt  

.61 

490 

49 

80.0 

2 

Extra  large.     Mission 

1.08 

6  640 

91 

84.0 

11  89 

36 

Fancy.     Net  wgt.  2  Ibs  

1.05 

965 

91 

86.0 

31 

Net  contents  1  pt.  ;  wgt.  olives  min.  9  oz. 

.57 

485 

50 

87.0 

7 

No.  2  Mission      ..    .. 

.91 

6  640 

80 

87.9 

11.98 

50 

9  oz.  net  

.68 

530 

60 

88  0 

44 

Net  wgt.  olives  min.  1  Ib.  3  oz. 

1.21 

970 

108 

89  0 

46 

Fancy.     Net  wgt.  2  Ibs. 

1.13 

965 

90 

89  0 

16 

Extra  large  size.     Mission  

.58 

460 

52 

89.6 

48 

Extra  large  size.    29  oz.  net  wgt  

1.14 

855 

103 

91  0 

30 

Net  wgt.  olives  min.  1  Ib.  3  oz  

1.19 

970 

111 

92  0 

3? 

Extra  large  size.     29  oz.  net  wgt  

1.14 

855 

106 

92.0 

45 

Net  contents  i  pt.  ;  wgt.  olives  min.  9  oz. 

.57 

485 

53 

93.0 

29 

Large  size.     Contents  20  oz  

1.25 

1035 

118 

94.0 

11 

Large  Mission    

1.10 

6  700 

106 

95  9 

11  55 

?8 

Net  wgt.  30—32  oz. 

1.11 

855 

100 

98  0 

?1 

Fancy    

.14 

6  150 

14 

98  6 

27 

Net  contents  15  oz  

.55 

475 

55 

99  0 

51 

Fancy    .. 

1.07 

840 

108 

101  0 

35 

9  oz.  net  

.60 

530 

61 

102  0 

26 
34 

Contents,  incl.  brine,  1  Ib.  13  oz  
18  oz.  fruit  net  

1.08 
1.21 

860 

111 
125 

103.0 
103  0 

11.57 

3 

Large.    Mission  ... 

1.06 

6640 

109 

103.0 

NOTE. — Samples  marked  6  were  in  bottles,  the  others  in  cans. 


SIZE-GRADES   FOB  RIPE  OLIVER 


21' 


TABLE  I—  (Continued) 
SIZE-GRADES  or  COMMERCIAL  RIPE  OLIVES 


Samj 
No. 
42 
40 
41 
17 
49 
4 
33 
8 

»le 
Designation  on  can  or  bottle 

Net  wgt.  30-32  oz  

Weight 
of  Olives 
Ibs. 

1.03 

Size 

I             Of 

container 
855 
860 
475 
460 
995 
b  640 

fo640 

Number 
of 
Olives 

107 
117 
65 
66 
125 
133 
80 
139 

Number 
of  Olives 
per  Ib. 

104.0 
105.0 
105.0 
110.0 
115.0 
127.1 
136.0 
156.4 

Mean 
diam. 

1  »;ths  in. 

Contents,  incl.  brine,  1  Ib.  13  oz  

1.11 

Net  contents  15  oz  

.61 

Large  size.     Mission  

.60 

18  oz.  fruit  net  

1  31 

Medium.     Mission  

1  04 

9.95 

15  oz.  net  wgt  

58 

No.   3    Mission    . 

.89 

9.98 

NOTE. — Samples  marked  b  were  in  bottles,  the  others  in  cans. 


This  table  shows  great  variation  in  usage.  Samples  labeled  Jumbo 
or  Mammoth  vary  from  36  to  74  per  pound;  Fancy  from  50  to  108; 
Extra  Large  from  84  to  106,  and  Large  from  68  to  110.  It  is  thus 
possible  to  buy  olives  labeled  "Large"  which  require  only  68  to  make 
a  pound,  while  "Mammoth"  olives  might  require  74  and  "Extra 
Large"  106. 

It  is  desirable  that  the  cans  should  be  designated  by  words,  numbers 
or  signs  that  would  give  the  buyer  information  on  the  size  and  weight 
of  the  olives  he  is  buying,  and  also  perhaps  of  the  number  in  a  can. 

Tendency  of  Current  Practice.— There  seems  to  be  a  general  ten- 
dency to  distinguish  by  descriptive  words  five  sizes.  These  are  (1) 
Jumbo,  Mammoth  or  Extra  Fancy;  (2)  Extra  Large  or  Fancy;  (3) 
Large;  (4)  Medium;  (5)  Small.  Some  label  their  various  sizes  1,  2,  3, 
etc.;  others  X,  XX,  XXX.  Table  II  shows  that  the  first  four  sizes 
include  olives  whose  average  diameter  range  from  16  sixteenths  to 
10  sixteenths  of  an  inch.  Those  smaller  than  this  are  not  often  pickled 
for  the  general  market.  While  this  general  tendency  exists,  the  indi- 
vidual variations  are  very  great  and  the  words,  numbers  and  signs  of 
the  various  brands  have  no  common  standard  or  meaning. 

Basis  for  a  Common  Standard. — In  order  to  establish  the  basis  for 
a  common  standard,  an  attempt  was  made  to  discover  the  relation 
between  diameter  and  number  per  pound.  The  data  in  Table  II  indi- 
cate that  this  is  not  a  fixed  ratio.  It  varies  in  fact  according  to  the 
shape  of  the  olive  and  its  specific  gravity.  With  the  same  diameter 
it  will  require  more  olives  of  a  rounded  variety,  like  the  Manzanillo. 
to  weigh  a  pound  than  of  an  elongated  variety,  like  the  Sevi llano. 


218 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Fresh  olives  will  weigh  less  than  pickled  olives  of  the  same  size  and 
shape,  owing  to  the  salt  contained  in  the  latter. 


Sample 
No. 


TABLE  II 
EELATION  OF  DIAMETER  TO  WEIGHT  AND  DESIGNATION 

Diameter  in  16ths  of  an  inch 


O 

6 
1 

12 
9 

13 
10 
14 


Designation 

Jumbo   17.12 

No.  1   

Fancy    14. 

X    14.08 

Extra  Fancy  13.76 

XX  14.40 

Fancy    14.08 

XXX    13.44 

No.  2  12.80 

Extra  Large  12.48 

Large  12.00 

Large  12.32 

No.  3  10.72 

Medium  ..  10.40 


Max. 

Min. 

Mean  D 

jUIOUgUI 

Mean  L 

1.1   11  III  IH-  1 

per  Ib. 

L/D 

17.12 

15.04 

16.05 

21.41 

35.5 

1.334 

15.04 

12.80 

13.70 

18.32 

61.5 

1.338 

14.88 

12.64 

13.63 

18.05 

58.9 

1.357 

14.08 

13.12 

13.60 

16.48 

61.4 

1,212 

13.76 

12.48 

13.30 

17.17 

64.6 

1.291 

14.40 

12.48 

13.25 

16.59 

67.6 

1.252 

14.08 

11.68 

12.69 

17.62 

73.4 

1.388 

13.44 

12.00 

12.57 

15.74 

75.7 

1.250 

12.80 

11.36 

11.98 

15.90 

87.9 

1.327 

12.48 

11.36 

11.89 

16.56 

84.0 

1.393 

12.00 

10.24 

11.57 

15.87 

103.0 

1.372 

12.32 

10.24 

11.55 

15.55 

95.9 

1.346 

10.72 

8.64 

9.98 

14.00 

156.4 

1.402 

10.40 

9.28 

9.95 

14.57 

127.1 

1.466 

For  olives  of  the  same  shape  and  specific  gravity  the  number  per 
pound  will  vary  inversely  as  the  cube  of  the  diameter.  For  example, 
an  olive  whose  diameter  is  16  sixteenths  will  weigh  8  times  as  much 
as  a  similar  olive  whose  diameter  is  only  8  sixteenths.  It  will  there- 
fore require  8  times  as  many  of  the  latter  as  of  the  former  to  weigh 
a  pound. 

While  the  olives  of  a  given  variety  vary  somewhat  in  shape,  accord- 
ing to  stage  of  development  and  other  factors,  these  variations  lie 
normally  within  certain  limits  and  the  average  shape  of  well-developed 
olives  of  any  variety  is  fairly  constant.  This  makes  it  possible  to  find 
a  factor  which  will  enable  us  to  calculate  the  number  of  olives  per 
pound  for  any  diameter  of  a  given  variety  with  a  fair  degree  of 
accuracy.  This  factor  will  be  different  for  each  variety  of  different 
shape  and  will  depend  particularly  on  the  elongation  of  the  olive  or 
the  ratio  between  length  and  thickness. 

From  a  large  number  of  weighings  and  measurements,  a  factor  has 
been  determined  for  each  of  several  of  our  principal  pickling  olives 
and  from  this  factor  the  number  of  olives  to  the  pound  for  the  various 
sizes.  Thp  results  are  shown  in  Table  III. 


SIZE-GRADES   FOR   RIPE   OLIVES  219 

TABLE   111 

RELATION  OF  DIAMETER  TO  NUMBER  PER  POUND  KOR  VARIOUS  VARIETIES 
OF  OLIVES  (PICKLED) 

Number  per  pound  =  K  -4-  D» 

Fairoaks  Average  Mission 

257  282  *244 

181  198  »190 

132  144  142 

99  109  107 

7.')  83  82 

(50  (if!  (if) 

47  52  52 

39  43  42 

32  3.->  3f) 

30  29 


Diameter 
8 

Manzanillo 
No.  1 

313 

Ascolano 
290 

Agostino 
286 

Cucco 
264 

9 

220 

204 

199 

186 

10 

160 

148 

146 

135 

11 

121 

112 

110 

102 

12 

93 

86 

85 

78 

13 

75 

68 

67 

(51 

14 

58 

54 

53 

49 

lf> 

48 

44 

43 

40 

16 

39 

3(5 

3(5 

33 

17 

33 

30 

30 

28 

L/D       1.168  1.238  1.288  1.303  1.392  1.328 

K  =  Number  of  olives  per  pound  of  size  10  multiplied  by  1000. 
L  =  Average  length  of  olive. 
D  =  Average  thickness  of  olive  or  diameter. 
L/D  =  Average  ratio  of  length  to  thickness. 

*  The  numbers  corresponding  to  diameters  8  and  9  for  the  Mission  were 
determined  by  actual  weighings  of  these  sizes.  The  numbers  are  slightly  lower 
than  would  be  found  by  calculation,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  undeveloped 
olives  are  more  elongated  than  those  over  10. 

From  this  table  it  is  possible  to  find  the  number  or  olives  required 
for  a  pound  of  the  various  sizes  of  the  different  varieties.  The 
dependence  of  the  number  on  the  ratio  of  length  to  thickness,  L/D, 
is  clearly  shown.  Of  the  Fairoaks  variety,  which  is  1.392  times  as  long 
as  wide,  257  olives  of  the  8  sixteenths  size  weigh  one  pound,  while  of 
the  Manzanillo  No.  1,  which  is  only  1.168  times  as  long  as  wide,  313 
of  the  same  size  are  necessary.  The  numbers  for  the  smaller  sizes 
8  to  10,  inclusive,  are  probably  a  little  high.  The  measurements  used 
to  determine  the  factor  K  were  made  on  olives  ranging  from  10  to  16 
sixteenths.  Olives  smaller  than  this  are  usually  undeveloped  and  are 
more  elongated  than  the  type.  They  will,  therefore,  be  heavier  in 
proportion  to  their  diameters  and  it  will  require  less  proportionately 
to  weigh  a  pound. 

The  number  of  size  grades  which  it  is  desirable  to  separate  depends 
on  the  objects  to  be  accomplished.  The  number  which  it  is  possible 
to  separate  depends  on  the  perfection  of  the  grading  machine  or  device 
used. 


220 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


CQ 


SIZE-GRADES   FOR   RIPE   OLIVES  221 

In  figure  1  is  shown  in  diagrammatic  form  the  sizes  and  variations 
found  in  the  various  grades  of  four  of  the  largest  picklers  of  ripe 
olives  in  California.  A  glance  at  this  diagram  shows  that  picklers 
A  and  B  separate  their  olives  into  four  fairly  distinctive  size-grades. 
Picklers  C  and  D  appear  not  to  have  had  any  very  large  olives  and, 
in  grading,  probably  simply  eliminated  the  fruit  that  was  too  small. 

Table  IV  shows  the  differences  between  the  average  sizes  of  the 
various  grades  for  each  pickler  and  the  range  from  the  largest  olive 
to  the  smallest. 

TABLE  IV 
DIFFERENCES  BETWEEN  GRADES  (in  sixteenths  of  an  inch) 

Grades 


1-2  2-3  3-4  Average  Total  range 

Pickler  A 1.74  .32  1.62  1.23             5.60 

Pickler  B 2.38  1.72  2.00  2.03             8.48 

Pickler  C 61  1.34          .98            3.52 

Pickler  D 35  .66  .51             2.08 

Table  V  shows  the  extreme  variation  in  size  of  olives  in  each  grade 
for  the  same  picklers. 

TABLE  V 

VARIATIONS  IN  EACH  GRADE  (in  sixteenths  of  an  inch) 
Grades 

a 

Pickler  A 2.24 

Pickler  B 2.06 

Pickler  C 1.26 

Pickler  D 

The  most  methodical  grading  is  evidently  that  of  B.  Although 
including  a  larger  range  of  sizes  of  olives,  the  differences  between 
grades  and  the  variations  within  the  grades  are  more  uniform  than 
those  of  any  of  the  others. 

As  all  sizes  of  olives  between  the  extremes  of  the  largest  and  the 
smallest  are  likely  to  occur,  the  range  of  variation  within  each  grade 
should  be  equal  to  the  difference  between  the  average  sizes  of  two 
adjacent  grades,  where  the  grading  is  done  accurately.  This  condition 
is  most  closely  approximated  by  B,  where  the  range  of  variation  and 
difference  between  grades  is  very  close  to  2  sixteenths. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  a  difference  of  2  sixteenths  between 
grades  would  be  suitable.  There  is  no  advantage  in  having  the  average 


1 
2.24 

2 
1.12 

3 
1.96 

4 
1.12 

Average 
1.56 

Total  range 
5.60 

2.06 

2.24 

1.44 

2.08 

1.96 

8.48 

1.26 

2.40 

2.08 

1.91 

3.52 

.96 

1.90 

1.44 

1.44 

2.08 

222  UNIVERSITY   OP    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

size  of  two  adjacent  grades  closer  than  the  variation  within  a  grade, 
as  in  C  and  D.  This  variation  exceeded  2  sixteenths  with  all  the 
picklers  except  D,  and  in  this  case  it  was  very  near  to  this  figure. 

The  grading  illustrated  in  figure  1  under  "Standard"  is  based  on 
this  difference  of  2  sixteenths. 

As  the  olives  are  graded  before  processing,  the  sizes  of  the  fresh 
olives  indicated  in  the  diagram  would  not  necessarily  be  exactly  the 
same  as  those  of  the  pickles,  but  the  difference  would  be  slight.  Tests 
made  show  that  there  may  be  increase  in  size  of  a  little  over  2  per  cent. 

TABLE  VI 
INCREASE  OF  SIZE  IN  PICKLIN<; 

Fresh  Olives        Pickled  Olives     Increase  Variety 


Sample  1 
Sample  2 
Sample  3 
Sample  4 

13  sixteenths 
13  sixteenths 
13  sixteenths 
11  sixteenths 

13.36 
13.31 
13.24 
11.15 

=     3% 
=     2.4% 
=     1.9% 
=     1.4% 

Manzanillo  No. 
Agostino 
Cucco 
Fairoaks 

1 

Average  increase    =     2.175 


Table  VII  gives  the  principal  data  regarding  the  standard  for  size- 
grades  which  corresponds  nearest  to  the  present  practice.  It  divides 
the  olives  usually  pickled  into  three  size-grades,  1,  2,  and  3,  called 
respectively  Extra  Large,  Large,  and  Medium.  These  are  all  over 
11  sixteenths  before  pickling.  The  smaller  olives,  if  pickled,  could  be 
divided  into  two  other  grades,  4  and  5,  called  Small  and  Extra  Small. 
Size  1  would  include  all  olives  which- failed  to  pass  through  a  15  six- 
teenth screen,  size  2  those  retained  by  a  13  sixteenths,  and  so  on.  The 
fourth  column  gives  the  approximate  average  size  of  the  pickled 
olives  and  the  fifth  column  the  number  of  pickled  olives  to  the  pound, 
varying  according  to  variety. 


TABLE  VII 

STANDARD  FOR  SIZE-GRADES 
(Based  on  present  practice;  difference  2  sixteenths  inch) 


Extra  large 

Size 
1 

Range 

17-15 

Average 
16 

Number  per  Ib. 
32  to  39 

Large 

2 

15-13 

14 

47  to  58 

Medium  

3 

13-11 

12 

75  to  93 

Small   . 

4 

11-  9 

10 

132  to  160 

Extra  small  ... 

5 

below  9 

SIZE-GRADES   FOR    RIPE   OLIVES  223 

Table  VIII  shows  the  average  number  per  pound  for  each  size  for 
our  commonest  pickling  varieties.  The  actual  sizes  of  the  four  grades 
are  shown  in  figure  1  under  "Standard." 


TABLE  VIII 
NUMBER  PER  POUND  OF  COMMON  VARIETIES  WITH  THE  PRESENT  GRADING 

Average  number  per  Ib. 


Retaining      Average 


Designation          screen*       diameter*  Mission        Sevillano  Ascolano  Manzanillo  No.  1 

Kxtra  large 15  16  35  33  36  39 

Large  ..  13  14  52  49  54  58 

Medium   11  12  82  78  86  93 

Small   ..  9  10  142  135  148  160 

*  These  numbers  represent  sixteenths  of  an  inch. 


Proposed  Improved  Standards. — It  has  been  proposed  to  make  a 
closer  segregation  of  sizes  than  is  made  by  this  standard.  Some 
picklers  advocate  a  series  of  size-grades  differing  by  1  sixteenth. 
This  would  result  in  an  over-lapping  of  the  grades  that  would  be  a 
source  of  confusion.  Olives  of  the  same  weight  would  go  into  different 
grades  according  to  their  shape.  An  elongated  olive  would  go  into 
a  lower  grade  than  a  rounded  olive  of  the  same  weight.  A  somewhat 
flattened  olive  would  go  into  a  higher  grade  than  a  round  olive  of 
the  same  weight.  There  will  of  course  be  a  certain  amount  of  this 
over-lapping,  whatever  the  standard  adopted,  but  it  will  be  negligible 
with  a  size-difference  of  2  sixteenths,  but  considerable  with  one  of 
1  sixteenth. 

A  more  perfect  and  logical  grading  would  be  one  that  was  based, 
not  on  an  absolute  difference  of  diameter  between  the  size-grades,  but 
on  a  percentage  difference.  If  the  largest  grade  was  the  same  per- 
centage larger  than  the  second  largest,  as  this  was  than  the  third 
largest,  and  so  on,  the  result  would  be  a  closer  grading  of  the  smaller 
.sizes  where  it  is  most  needed. 

For  example,  an  olive  with  a  diameter  of  8  sixteenths  weighs  only 
70  per  cent  as  much  as  an  olive  of  0  sixteenths,  while  an  olive  of 
15  sixteenths  weighs  82  per  cent  as  much  as  an  olive  of  16  sixteenths. 
In  the  first  case  the  difference  is  readily  perceptible  to  the  eye;  in  the 
other,  it  is  hardly  noticeable.  A  grading  based  on  a  percentage  differ- 
ence avoids  this  difficulty.  Such  a  grading  is  shown  in  Table  IX. 


Designation 
Fancy 

Retaining 
screen 

15.0 

Average 
diameter  of 
Olives 

16.0 

Difference 
between 
grades 

Extra  large  

13.2 

14.1 

1.9 

Larsre 

11.6 

12.4 

1.7 

Medium   

10.2 

10.9 

1.5 

Small    . 

9.0 

9.6 

1.3 

224  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

TABLE  IX 
PROPOSED  STANDARD  FOR  SIZE-GRADES 

(Based  on  a  percentage  difference) 

Average  number  per  Ib. 

Mission  Other  varieties 

35  32-39 

51  46-57 

75  68-83 

111  100-124 

162  146-180 

By  this  method  the  difference  between  grades  gradually  increases 
from  1.3  sixteenths  between  the  smallest  grades  to  1.9  sixteenths  between 
the  largest.  Each  grade  has  almost  exactly  88  per  cent  the  average 
diameter  of  the  next  larger  grade  and  weighs  68  per  cent  as  much. 
The  number  of  olives  to  the  pound  would  be  inversely  proportionate 
to  the  weight  and  the  number  for  each  grade  would  be  68  per  cent  of 
the  next  smaller  grade. 

This  method  of  dividing  the  size-grades  would,  from  many  points 
of  view,  be  preferable  to  those  now  in  use.  It  apears  to  be  as  close  a 
grading  as  is  possible  in  view  of  the  irregularity  in  the  shape  of  olives 
of  all  varieties.  It  would  insure  a  closer  grading  than  the  present 
system.  Olives  about  9  sixteenths  would  be  separated  into  five  size- 
grades,  instead  of  into  four,  as  is  the  present  custom. 


PEOPOSED  SIZE-GRADES  FOR  OLIVES 

1.  Fancy.    All  which  are  retained  by  a  screen  of  15  sixteenths  mesh. 
Average  diameter  of  olives,  about  16  sixteenths.     Average  weight  for 
Mission  variety,  35  to  the  pound. 

2.  Extra  Large.     All  which  pass  a  15  but  fail  to  pass  a  13.2  six- 
teenths mesh.     Average  diameter  of  olives,  14.1  sixteenths.     Average 
weight  for  Mission,  51  to  the  pound. 

3.  Large.    All  which  pass  a  13.2  but  fail  to  pass  an  11.6  sixteenths 
mesh.     Average  diameter  of  olives,  12.4  sixteenths.     Average  weight 
for  Mission,  75  to  the  pound. 

4.  Medium.     All  which  pass  an  11.6  sixteenths,  but  fail  to  pass  a 
10.2  sixteenths  mesh.     Average  diameter  of  olives,   10.9  sixteenths. 
Average  weight  for  Mission,  111  to  the  pound. 

5.  Small.     All  which  pass  a  10.2  sixteenths,  but  fail  to  pass  a  9 
sixteenths  mesh.    Average  diameter  of  olives,  9.6  sixteenths.    Average 
weight  for  Mission,  162  to  the  pound. 


SIZE-GRADES   FOR   RIPE   OLIVES 


225 


Some  of  the  best  size-grading  machines  for  olives  do  not  make  use 
of  perforated  screens  but  of  tapering  or  adjustable  slots.  It  is  possible 
to  adjust  such  a  grader  to  any  standard  of  sizes.  Some  picklers  adjust 
the  grader  so  that  it  divides  the  olives  into  size-grades  having  each  a 
specified  number  of  olives  per  pound. 

In  one  factory  four  size-grades  are  made,  having  respectively  60, 
72,  90,  and  120  olives  to  the  pound.  For  Mission  olives  these  numbers 
represent  average  diameters  of  13.3,  12.4,  11.6,  and  10.6  sixteenths,  or 


DIFFERENCE 


TWO 


16 


THS.  IN. 


DIFFERENCE 
88 


PER   CENT 


IS 


13 


11 


X^^v 


FANCY 

15 

EXTRA 
LARGE 

13.2 
LARGE 
11.6 
MEDIUM 

10.2 
SMALL 


Fig.  2. — Comparison  of  the  most  usual  present  system  with  the  proposed  system. 
Right  column:  Four  size-grades  of  most  common  present  system. 
Left  column:  Five  size-grades  of  proposed  percentage  system. 
The  numbers  in  the  circles  show  the  average  diameter  of  the  olives;  the 
numbers  at  each  side  show  the  diameter  of  the  holes  in  the  sorting  screens. 


226  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

the  grading  that  would  be  obtained  by  screens  of  10,  11,  12,  and  13 
sixteenths  of  an  inch.  The  objections  to  this  close  grading  have  already 
been  shown,  and  also  to  the  adoption  of  an  absolute  difference  instead 
of  a  percentage  difference. 


COMPAEISON  OF  VARIOUS  SYSTEMS  OF  SIZE-GRADING 

A.  Size-grades  differing  by  2  sixteenths  of  an  inch. 

B.  Size-grades  differing  by  88  per  cent  in  diameter  and  68  per  cent  in 

weight. 

C.  Nearest  approximation  to  system  B  that  can  be  made  with  screens 

differing  by  thirty-seconds  of  an  inch. 

DIAMETER  OF  PERFORATIONS  OF  SCREENS  (in  sixteenths  of  an  inch) 
A  15  13  11  9 

B  15  13.2  11.6  10.2  9 

C  15  13  11.5  10  9 

DIAMETER  AND  WEIGHT  OF  OLIVES  OF  EACH  GRADE 


UIAM  JV1  CjCi     A  IN  U       VV  -CjUjXl  1      UJ       \_/^i  V  EtQ 

Average  diameter 

ur    i^Aijn   vjrn.AU& 
No.  of  Olives  per  Ib. 

A. 

A 

r   •" 
A 

B 

\ 

A 

B 

C 

16 

16 

16 

Fancy 

35 

35 

35 

14 

14.1 

14 

Extra  large 

52 

51 

52 

12 

12.4 

12% 

Large 

82 

75 

77 

10 

10.9 

10% 

Medium 

142 

111 

114 

9.6 

91/0 

Small 

162 

166 

<9 

9 

9 

Culls 

SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

1.  The  separation  of  olives  into  size-grades  is  necessary  for  the  best 
results  in  pickling  and  marketing. 

2.  No  standard  has  been  established  for  size-grades. 

3.  There  is  much  lack  of  uniformity  in  present  practice. 

4.  Some  picklers  simply  eliminate  all  small  olives,  usually  those 
whose  shortest  diameter  is  less  than  10  or  11  sixteenths.    Other  picklers 
divide  the  olives  above  9  sixtenths  into  three  or  four  grades  differing 
by  2  sixteenths. 

5.  Some  picklers  consider  that  this  grading  is  not  fine  enough  and 
advocate  grades  differing  by  only  1  sixteenth. 

6.  A  difference  of  1  sixteenth  is  unnecessarily  fine,  as  adjoining 
grades  would  be  almost  indistinguishable,  especially  with  the  larger 


SIZE-GRADES    FOB   RIPE   OLIVES  227 

sizes.      This  small  difference  is  also  impracticable  owing  to  irregu- 
larities in  the  shape  of  the  olives. 

7.  A  grading  based  on  any  absolute  difference  between  all  sizes  is 
imperfect.    If  suitable  to  the  larger  sizes,  it  will  be  too  coarse  for  the 
smaller;  if  suitable  for  the  smaller,  it  will  be  too  fine  for  the  larger. 

8.  A  more  suitable  grading  would  be  one  based  on  a  percentage 
difference;  one  in  which  each  size  was  a  certain  per  cent  of  the  next 
larger  size. 

0.  A  grade  based  on  a  difference  in  diameter  of  88  per  cent  is  pro- 
posed. This  would  increase  the  number  of  size-grades  above  9  six- 
teenths from  four,  which  is  usual  now,  to  five.  Tt  would  decrease  the 
absolute  difference  between  the  smallest  sizes  to  1.3  sixteenths,  while 
that  between  the  largest  sizes  would  be  1.9  sixteenths. 


232992 


REPORTS 

1897.      Resistant  Vines,  their  Selection,   Adaptation,  and  Grafting.     Appendix  to  Viticultural 
Report  for  1896. 

1902.  Report  of  the  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  for  1898-1901. 

1903.  Report  of  the  Agricultural   Experiment   Station  for   1901-03. 

1904.  Twenty-second  Report  of  the  Agricultural  Experiment  Station   for   1903-04. 

1914.  Report  of  the  College  of  Agriculture  and  the  Agricultural   Experiment  Station,  July, 

1913-June,  1914. 

1915.  Report  of  the  College  of  Agriculture  and  the  Agricultural   Experiment   Station,   July, 

1914-June,  1915. 

BULLETINS 


No. 
168. 

169. 
174. 
177. 

178. 
184. 

185. 

195. 
197. 


198. 
203. 

207. 
208. 
211. 

212. 
213. 
216. 


No. 
65. 
69. 

70. 

76. 
80. 


83. 
100. 
106. 

107. 

108. 
109. 


110. 
111. 


114. 
115. 

117. 

118. 
119. 


Observations   on    Some   Vine   Diseases 

in  Sonoma  County. 

Tolerance  of  the  Sugar  Beet  for  Alkali. 
A  New  Wine-Cooling  Machine. 
A   New   Method   of   Making   Dry    Red 

Wine. 

Mosquito  Control. 
Report    of    the    Plant    Pathologist    to 

July  1,    1906. 

Report  of  Progress  in  Cereal  Investi- 
gations. 

The  California  Grape  Root-worm. 
Grape  Culture  in  California ;  Improved 

Methods     of     Wine-making;      Yeast 

from   California   Grapes 
The  Grape  Leaf-Hopper. 
Report    of    the    Plant    Pathologist    to 

July  1,   1909. 

The  Control  of  the   Argentine  Ant. 
The  Late  Blight  of  Celery. 
How  to   Increase  the  Yield  of  Wheat 

in   California. 
California   White   Wheats. 
The  Principles  of  Wine-making. 
A    Progress    Report    upon     Soil    and 

Climatic     Factors     Influencing     the 

Composition  of  Wheat. 


No. 

220.  Dosage  Tables. 

225.  Tolerance  of  Eucalyptus  for  Alkali. 
227.   Grape  Vinegar. 
230.   Enological   Investigations. 
234.  Red  Spiders  and  Mites  of  Citrus  Trees. 

241.  Vine  Pruning  in  California.     Part  I. 

242.  Humus  in  California  Soils. 
244.  Utilization  of  Waste  Oranges. 

246.  Vine  Pruning  in  California.     Part  II. 

248.  The  Economic  Value  of  Pacific  Coast 

Kelps. 

249.  Stock  Poisoning  Plants  of  California. 

250.  The  Loquat. 

251.  Utilization    of    the    Nitrogen    and    Or- 

ganic  Matter   in    Septic    and   Imhoff 
Tank  Sludges. 

252.  Deterioration  of  Lumber. 

253.  Irrigation   and   Soil  Conditions  in  the 

Sierra  Nevada  Foothills,  California. 

254.  The  Avocado  in  California. 

255.  The  Citricola  Scale. 

256.  Value  of  Barlev  for  Cows  fed  Alfalfa. 

257.  New  Dosage  Tables  . 

258.  Mealy  Bugs  of  Citrus  Trees. 

261.  Melaxuma    of    the    Walnut,     "Juglans 

regia." 

262.  Citrus    Diseases   of   Florida    and    Cuba 

compared  with  those  of  California. 


CIRCULARS 

No. 


The  California   Insecticide  Law. 

The   Extermination   of   Morning-Glory. 

Observations  on  the  Status  of  Corn 
Growing  in  California. 

Hot  Room  Callusing. 

Boys'  and  Girls'  Clubs. 

The  Common  Ground  Squirrels  of 
California. 

Potato  Growing  Clubs. 

Pruning  Frosted  Citrus  Trees. 

Directions  for  using  Anti-Hog-Cholera 
Serum. 

Spraving  Walnut  Trees  for  Blight  and 
Aphis  Control. 

Grape  Juice. 

Communitv  or  Local  Extension  Work 
by  the  High  School  Agricultural  De- 
partment. 

Green  Manuring  in  California. 

The  Use  of  Lime  and  Gypsum  on  Cali- 
fornia Soils. 

Correspondence  Courses  in  Agriculture. 

Increasing  the  Duty  of  Water. 

Grafting  Vinifera  Vineyards. 

The  Selection  and  Cost  of  a  Small 
Pumping  Plant. 

The  County  Farm  Bureau 

Winery  Directions. 


121.  Some   Things    the    Prospective    Settler 

Should  Know. 

122.  The  Management  of  Strawberry   Soils 

in  Pajaro  Valley. 

124.  Alfalfa  Silage  for  Fattening  Steers. 

125.  Aphids  on  Grain  and  Cantaloupes. 

126.  Spraying  for  the  Grape  Leaf  Hopper. 

127.  House  Fumigation. 

128.  Insecticide  Formulas. 

129.  The  Control  of  Citrus  Insects. 

130.  Cabbage  Growing  in  California. 

131.  Spraying  for  Control  of  Walnut  Aphis. 

132.  When      to      Vaccinate      against      Hog 

Cholera. 

133.  County  Farm  Advisor. 

134.  Control  of  Raisin  Insects. 

135.  Official   Tests   of  Dairy   Cows. 

136.  Melilotus    Indica. 

137.  Wood  Decay  in  Orchard  Trees. 

138.  The  Silo  in  California  Agriculture. 

139.  The   Generation   of  Hvdrocvanic   Acid 

Gas  in  Fumigation  by  Portable  Ma- 
chines. 

140.  The  Practical  Application  of  Improved 

Methods  of  Fermentation   in   Califor- 
nia Wineries  during  1913  and  1914. 

141.  Standard   Insecticides   and   Fungicides 

versus   Secret   Preparations. 

142.  Practical  and  Inexpensive  Poultry  Ap- 

pliances. 

143.  Control    of    Grasshoppers    in    Imperial 

Valley. 

;  ;Y  of  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 
URRARY 


SB 
367     Bioletti   - 

I52a       Size 


cop.  4      for   ripe 


A    001  095413     9 


